It is supposed to be the model for New York City parks to come — built from dilapidated industrial structures, self-sustaining and financed by commercial ventures operating on parkland. And Hudson River Park, which stretches five miles along the Manhattan waterfront from Battery Place to 59th Street, has succeeded in drawing millions of visitors and billions of dollars in development to the West Side. But it now finds its future in doubt, according to the New York Times in a follow up from the NY Post's 2009 story.

Capital funds from the city and state have fallen to just $7 million from a high of $42 million in 2008, because of the recession. Meanwhile, two of the park’s planned revenue-producing commercial piers have yet to be developed, leaving the Hudson River Park Trust, which runs the park, short of the money it needs for routine maintenance.

Adding to its woes: A lawsuit filed in November by the owners of Chelsea Piers, the sports and entertainment complex, which leases three piers from 17th to 23rd Street from the trust. The suit seeks to force the trust, and by extension taxpayers, to spend “at least $37.5 million” repairing damage its piers have sustained over the past two decades from small marine borers known as gribbles and teredos.

This month, the trust fired back in court with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuit amounted to nothing more than a “for-profit commercial venture trying to secure a huge public bailout for longstanding problems of its own making and for which it bears the sole legal responsibility.”

The suit is a contest between the Bloomberg administration, state officials and the trust on one side and on the other, a well-connected group of investors led by Roland W. Betts, whose list of friends includes George E. Pataki, Michael R. Bloomberg and his Yale fraternity brother George W. Bush. The trust’s board chairwoman is Diana L. Taylor, Mayor Bloomberg’s live-in companion.

Hudson River Park grew out of the ill-fated proposal to build Westway, a superhighway, on 200 acres of landfill along the West Side.

State and city officials in 1998 estimated the park’s cost at $300 million — within a year, that had jumped to $370 million — and its completion date as 2003. The city and the state have already put in $340 million in capital funds, and the trust says another $200 million is needed to finish the public areas of the park. Fourteen years after it began, the park is 70 percent complete.

The cost of caring for structures built on or over water is enormous because they are constantly subjected to battering by tides, winds, fungi and marine borers, problems largely unknown at landlocked properties. Indeed, the biggest hurdle in the park’s development has been the piers themselves.

“It’s far more expensive to replace, repair and take care of these piers than anyone anticipated,” said Madelyn Wils, president and chief executive of the trust and a former executive vice president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation. Ms. Wils said demolishing and replacing Pier 54, at West 13th Street, where the wood pilings are severely deteriorated, would cost $33 million; constructing its planned amenities would cost an additional $30 million.

Pier 40, at Houston Street, is even more problematic. The 14-acre pier has thousands of steel pilings that are severely corroded; a recent estimate for their repair came in at $80 million to $90 million.

Pier 40 also happens to be one of the piers designated for commercial development, with revenues to cover park maintenance. The others include Chelsea Piers and Pier 57, at West 15th Street, where plans are moving ahead for an urban market fashioned from recycled shipping containers, as well as a rooftop park.

The annual budget for routine maintenance at the park is $15 million, a figure Ms. Wils says has not grown despite a doubling of the landscaped areas in recent years. Almost half of the $15 million comes from fees at the covered parking area on Pier 40 — revenue that is now threatened by a leaky roof.

“Part of the challenge is how to put together a plan for successful private investment and appropriate redevelopment when you’re basing that thinking on quicksand,” said Vin Cipolla, president of the Municipal Art Society, a nonprofit group dedicated to planning and preservation, and one of 29 members of a new Hudson River Park task force. “There has to be public investment, and the leadership will have to come from the governor. Otherwise we’ll just see more deterioration.”

The task force, formed by the trust in December, is charged with looking at the fiscal challenges confronting the park and considering possible amendments to the state law that established it.

That legislation was highly specific — some say restrictive — in terms of the sorts of commercial activity allowed in the park, with prohibitions on hotels, offices, housing and casinos, as well as limits on the length of leases.

“We want to make changes so we can move ahead and finish building this park,” Ms. Wils said. “This is not an impossible task, but we can no longer sit around and say, ‘What do we do with Pier 40?’ We need to take action.”

The trust also hopes to step up private fund-raising, taking a page from the successful campaign of the nearby High Line park. The Chelsea Piers lawsuit may make that task even more difficult.

The suit describes the dire state of Chelsea’s wood pilings, arguing that the company has already spent $16 million on “necessary emergency repair work.” It contends, as it has several times in the past, that the Hudson River Park Trust has a legal obligation to pay for the rehabilitation of the pilings.

Executives and officials of the piers and the trust were reluctant to discuss the issue because the lawsuit is pending. A spokesman for the trust would say only that it would vigorously defend itself.

The mayor’s office played down the dispute. “This is a good-faith disagreement between the two parties, which is what judges and courts are for,” Stu Loeser, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, said.

Chelsea Piers, which currently pays $3.5 million a year in rent, opened in 1995, three years before the State Legislature created the Hudson River Park. In the late 1990s, Chelsea Piers asked for a rent rebate to pay for pier repairs.

After the trust rebuffed its demands, Mr. Betts went directly to Mr. Pataki, who was then the governor, and won a five-year rent rebate for pier repairs, beginning in 2004, that was worth $2.5 million. The trust insisted, however, that the rebate “should not be viewed as a waiver, modification or concession by the trust to any of the terms and conditions of your lease.” The lease states that Chelsea Piers is required “to make all repairs,” structural and nonstructural.

But the lease also contains an exception: The state will use its best efforts to include Chelsea Piers in any comprehensive, government-sponsored rehabilitation of the Hudson River piers.

Mr. Betts and Chelsea Piers Management contended in the suit that contrary to the lease, the complex had been wrongfully excluded from a multibillion-dollar effort by the city and the trust to rehabilitate the Hudson River waterfront.

To defend itself, the trust hired Randy M. Mastro, who was a deputy mayor in the Giuliani administration and over the past seven years has served as the go-to lawyer for companies suing the Bloomberg administration. He has a reputation as a fierce and combative litigator.

In his response to the lawsuit, Mr. Mastro argues that there is no “comprehensive plan” to repair all the piers on Manhattan’s Hudson River waterfront. Indeed, the trust’s motion states that only about one-third of all the piers on the river have been scheduled for construction work by the trust. The trust also says the cost of repairing the pilings at Chelsea Piers could reach $100 million.

“And now, unable to obtain any further subsidies from its public landlord,” the trust says in its brief, “Chelsea Piers belatedly sues as its ‘last gasp’ effort to avoid its contractual repair obligations, and in the process, threatens to bankrupt a public corporation charged with the development and stewardship of the most acclaimed public park in New York City since Central Park.”

N.Y.U. is asking the city to lift development and open-space restrictions on its two superblocks south of Washington Square so that it can add 2.5 million square feet of space, with 1.5 million of that aboveground and 1 million underground.

"Villagers should feel absolutely no reticence in asserting their opposition to New York University’s monstrous, grandiose 2031 plan,"writes former City Council Member Carol Greitzer in a very informative historical piece published in this week's Villager about NYU and the former Board of Estimate's past transgressions involving the original Washington Square Southeast Title I project.

Manhattan

In what opponents blasted as an “orchestrated” show of support for N.Y.U.’s 2031 large-scale development plan, union construction workers — along with university deans and even the women’s basketball team coach — testified on behalf of the ambitious development scheme at Community Board 2’s packed full board meeting last Thursday night, according to the Villager.

And, in a first, a lone local resident spoke in favor of the plan. But the crowd mockingly accused him of being paid off.

Meanwhile, local residents among the 300-person audience at P.S. 41 repeatedly told N.Y.U. and the construction workers to “Build it Downtown!” — meaning the university should develop its new space nearby in the Financial District where Community Board 1 has an open invitation for N.Y.U. to come grow.

Several N.Y.U. faculty members also spoke against the plan, saying it would disrupt both their classrooms and their families’ lives.

Brad Hoylman, C.B. 2 chairperson, said 1,000 people had turned out at the board’s previous five hearings on the N.Y.U. “Core Proposal” this month. He noted the board had “avoided a melee” after the first of these hearings, when the auditorium at the A.I.A. Center proved to be too small for the overcapacity crowd, and the meeting had to be quickly moved to Our Lady of Pompei Church’s basement.

Hoylman said, at this point, the board will send a formal letter to N.Y.U. regarding the plan, asking the university to respond to it in writing. Following that, there will be a second round of meetings on the 2031 plan by the C.B. 2 committees during February.

Then, on Mon., Feb. 20, the board’s N.Y.U. Working Group, co-chaired by David Gruber and Terri Cude, will take all the resolutions from the various committees and use them to draft a comprehensive “omnibus resolution” on the N.Y.U. plan.

On Thurs., Feb. 23, the full community board will vote on this resolution — which is sure to be a lengthy one — which will then be sent to the City Planning Commission as the board’s advisory recommendations as part of the ULURP (uniform land-use review procedure) for the proposed plan. It’s the same procedure that C.B. 2 followed in its ULURP review of Rudin Management’s residential redevelopment scheme for the former St. Vincent’s Hospital site — which was approved on Monday by the Planning Commission.

The board didn’t pass any resolutions on the N.Y.U. plan at last Thursday night’s meeting, since it’s only midway through its 60-day ULURP review for the university’s application.

N.Y.U. is asking the city to lift development and open-space restrictions on its two superblocks south of Washington Square so that it can add 2.5 million square feet of space, with 1.5 million of that aboveground and 1 million underground.

In total, four new buildings would be added on the superblocks, located between Houston and W. Third Sts., including a new dorm, a replacement gym and an N.Y.U hotel on the southern block, plus two academic “Boomerang Buildings” in the Washington Square Village courtyard on the northern block.

In addition, N.Y.U. will provide space for the city’s School Construction Authority to build a new public school at the southeast corner of Bleecker St. and LaGuardia Place. Initially, N.Y.U. had thought it would be constructing the “core and shell” for this public school, but now is only providing the land for free. In an e-mail, Alicia Hurley, the university’s vice president for government affairs and community engagement, explained that, at first, the university thought it might be putting the school in the planned, mixed-use “Zipper Building,” to be developed on the Coles Gym site on Mercer St., or possibly one of the new “Boomerang Buildings” in Washington Square Village, in either of which case it would have built the public school’s basic structure. But the situation changed, Hurley said, after N.Y.U. scrapped plans for adding a fourth slender tower (not well suited for a public school) within the landmarked Silver Towers complex and decided instead to build on the adjacent Morton Williams supermarket site, which is better configured for a public school; the revised proposal now calls for an S.C.A.-built public school in this planned building’s base, topped by an N.Y.U. dorm.

One of the building trades officials at last Thursday’s full board hearing noted that N.Y.U. is an “economic driver” for the city, generating $2.5 billion for the economy and providing 25,000 jobs. The 2031 plan, he added, would provide 2,400 construction jobs over the next 20 years. Hard hats in the audience, who were all wearing orange T-shirts, cheered and held up “Build It!” and “Build Now!” signs.

However, Steve Ashkinazy, a C.B. 2 member, said if N.Y.U. instead built in the Financial District it would still mean the same number of new construction jobs — only not in the Village. Local residents in the audience cheered their approval.

Dennis Lee, of Local 79 of the masons and carpenters union, said New York needs the educational power of N.Y.U. to keep pace with global competition.

“I think our thoughts really do have to go back to our kids,” said Lee, a hulking figure who looked like he could play for the football Giants. “This is a worldwide economy, and we’re getting left behind.”

Jennifer Falk, executive director of the Union Square Partnership business improvement district, similarly said that the area’s large institutions, N.Y.U., The New School and Beth Israel Hospital, “are all major economic drivers. The economic impact that N.Y.U. has had… . They shop in our shops, they use our services. I strongly urge everyone in the room to work to make this plan happen for the benefit of the entire city of New York.”

As she spoke, an opponent called out, “Downtown!” and someone else chided her, “Shame on you!”

Scott Dwyer, the lone Village resident — not counting N.Y.U.-affiliated employees — to testify in favor of the scheme, said, “The current superblocks are monolithic failures, and the city and N.Y.U. are to blame.” He said the superblocks’ main feature is “private, walled-off gardens.”

“How much did they pay you?” audience members called out derisively. No residents had spoken in favor of the plan at C.B. 2’s five previous N.Y.U. meetings in January.

Mary Brabeck, dean of N.Y.U.’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, said the new construction would allow Steinhardt to centralize its faculty, now scattered over four different spaces, in one location.

Mary Schmidt Campbell, dean of N.Y.U.’s Tisch School of the Arts, said, “Greenwich Village is one of the world’s great artistic centers. For the past 50 years, the Tisch School has been a part of that.” She added that there would be a new performing arts center at Houston and Mercer Sts.

“That’s the hotel!” one anti called out incredulously. Indeed, N.Y.U. has not mentioned an arts center being part of the planned “Zipper Building” up to this point.

Calling the 2031 plan “elegant,” Janice Quinn, the N.Y.U. women’s basketball team coach, stated, “I say this as a neighbor, and not as an employee… . I think it’s time for us [N.Y.U.] to improve.”

Also testifying in support of N.Y.U. were representatives of social-service organizations, including the Bowery Residents’ Committee and University Settlement House.

“N.Y.U. has been a really excellent partner in helping those in need,” said the University Settlement representative. She said the Lower East Side settlement house supports N.Y.U.’s “ability to grow and remain a resource.”

The pro-N.Y.U. speakers were weighted toward the first half of the meeting. Hoylman said one person had signed them all up — which is allowable. About midway through the meeting, some N.Y.U. officials, including Hurley and Senior Vice President Lynne Brown, and the construction workers left. The plan’s opponents angrily said they felt “disrespected” by the N.Y.U. officials for not staying to hear all the criticisms of the plan. However, John Beckman, the university’s spokesperson, did stay for most of the full 2½ hours of public testimony. He later noted that Hurley had already attended five meetings on N.Y.U. that month — plus, no resolution on N.Y.U. was being voted on that night.

Former Councilmember Carol Greitzer recalled how 50 years ago the community had fought N.Y.U.’s effort to obtain the two superblocks, which were part of a federal Title I urban renewal area. The original developer wanted to get out of the deal, and so the property should have gone to a bidding process — but the city wanted the university to get the blocks, Greitzer said. To appease the community, the university agreed to give one of the new Silver Towers — 504 LaGuardia Place — as a residential building for Villagers. In addition, the university promised to create an N.Y.U.-run, experimental public school on the present Coles Gym site, yet this was never built, Greitzer said.

“This is infill infamy, and we can’t let this happen again!” Greitzer declared as the crowd cheered.

Beth Gottlieb, president of the Mercer-Houston Dog Run, said, “The buildings and scale of this project do not belong in the Village. We do not want to be homogenized, overbuilt or Gap-ified.” Warning politicians who will vote on the plan as part of ULURP, Gottlieb said, “To Councilmember Chin, Borough President Stringer and all our elected officials who say you represent us — do it! If not, you’ll hear from us on Election Day.”

Matt Viggiano, Councilmember Chin’s land-use planning director, said he knows people are eager to know Chin’s position on N.Y.U. 2031. The superblocks are in her district, and her stance presumably would have a major influence on the Council’s vote on the ULURP.

“It’s a little early for us,” he said of Chin revealing her full position on the project. “Over the next few months, the councilmember will continue to meet with residents and the community board. We have serious concerns about the size and impact of the 2031 plan.”

Nina Hernandez, an N.Y.U. alumna who lives on Mercer St. across from the “Zipper Building” site, said, “I know we need the jobs. But we need our community, we need our light, we need our air. I don’t want to live in a canyon.”

Mary Johnson, a former C.B. 2 member who lives east of Washington Square Park, said recent N.Y.U. projects, like its co-generation plan upgrade, turned the neighborhood into a nonstop construction zone.

“N.Y.U. has been renovating buildings, putting things on top of roofs, digging holes, connecting the co-gen to every area — it ain’t fun,” she said. “Eighteen to 19 years of that would be hell.”

Also, she said, the residents of the so-called “loft blocks” east of the park don’t want N.Y.U.’s proposed rezoning to add commercial uses in this area.

“We have plenty of shops on Eighth St. and Broadway,” she said.

Fearing the construction’s fallout and its impact on air quality, Laurence Maslon, a professor at the Tisch School, said, “What happens in my classroom when I have to take my 6-year-old to the doctor because he has a lung infection? Faculty housing is a covenant between a university and its faculty,” said Maslon, who lives on the superblocks. He said if a project of this magnitude were proposed at a small liberal-arts college like Wesleyan or Oberlin, the faculty would revolt.

Gary Anderson, a Steinhardt professor, referred to Villagers’ past battles to beat back the neighborhood-destroying plans of Robert Moses.

Friday, January 27, 2012

"The proposal's sole supporter to speak out at the meeting was from Friends of the High Line. The elevated park stands to reap huge financial benefits if Jamestown's expansion goes through."

The Jamestown Properties’ proposal for a massive expansion to the Chelsea Market got a resounding thumbs down from its neighbors Wednesday night — with only a single voice speaking in support, according to DNAinfo.

At the first of many public forums on Jamestown Properties’ proposal for a huge expansion to the historic building, dozens of community members wearing "Save Chelsea Market!" stickers took to the podium to voice their opposition to the plan.

The proposal's sole supporter to speak out at the meeting was from Friends of the High Line. The elevated park stands to reap huge financial benefits if Jamestown's expansion goes through.

Jamestown’s proposal for the market at 75 Ninth Ave. would add nine floors and 240,000 square feet of office space on top of the building’s 10th Avenue side, and a 90,000 square foot hotel on the Ninth Avenue side.

In order to do that, Jamestown needs to convince the City Council to approve a zoning change that would put Chelsea Market into the Special West Chelsea District, an area created largely to facilitate the construction of the High Line.

The tentative plan still needs to be certified by the city’s planning department — likely to happen on Feb. 27 — before undergoing a comprehensive and lengthy rezoning review process.

"Would the city really change its own zoning so that new office space can be built in a neighborhood that does not need it, and clearly does not want it?" asked Jim Jasper, head of the West 15th Street Block Association.

"What public good could possibly be created by Jamestown out of Chelsea Market? We’re choking on traffic along Ninth Avenue. The last thing we need is another hotel."

That sentiment was echoed by dozens of others, who said the expansion is out of character with the market and its surrounding buildings, that it would raise rents in the neighborhood and block light to the High Line.

Residents said zoning officials should not bend over backward to satisfy a single developer.

"We feel that this private investment scheme bonanza is not what our zoning regulations are intended for," said Lesley Doyel, who heads up Save Chelsea, a community group that’s led the charge against the market’s expansion.

If the development goes according to Jamestown’s plan, the developer would make a substantial one-time $17 million contribution to the city-run High Line Improvement Fund.

Jamestown would also add roughly 3,000 square feet of activity space and 1,000 square feet of storage space to the park — plus provide it with a freight elevator.

“We really see this as a unique opportunity to provide the High Line with infrastructure for the future,” said Peter Mullan, head of planning and design for Friends of the High Line. His comments were met with grumbles from many in the room.

This is the committee that will be first to weigh in on whether to support the rezoning application, and some members said they see it as a chance to improve upon the Special West Chelsea District.

Community members originally hoped the Special West Chelsea District, created in 2005, would include greater height and bulk limits, more affordable housing and additional open-space requirements. If Jamestown Properties does win the right to expand Chelsea Market, the community may have a chance to expand the boundaries of the Special West Chelsea District and sweeten the 2005 deal.

"I would like to use it as a spearhead to look at larger zone changes, larger configurations in Chelsea," said committee member Burt Lazarin. "And perhaps how we go about creating a Chelsea park fund and a Chelsea affordable housing fund."

Still, many residents said they disliked the idea of giving Jamestown special treatment.

"Why is just one block being singled out for this spot zoning?" asked Hilda Regier.

"If you truly want all those areas considered for rezoning, vote this down this time around — if you want the whole thing, then we have another fight."

A railing at the neglected pavilion at Conference House Park appears dislodged at the site that's been closed since the Summer months. According to a Parks Department inspection report, the pavilion would require $1.335 million in repairs, nearly the same amount of money that was spent to build it. The pavilion was built as part of a $14 million plan to unify the historic 225-acre Conference House Park.The city's Department of Parks and Recreation did not respond to requests for comment. (Staten Island Advance/Mark Stein)

At the very least, it needs plenty of costly work to shore it up before it reopens to the public. According to an allegedly official city Parks Department inspection report received by the Advance, the structure at the end of the South Shore was inspected on Sept. 30, 2011, and needs extensive repairs to timber beams, planks, posts, and other parts.

The airy wooden structure stands in Conference House Park, Tottenville. According to the report, the pavilion would require $1.335 million in repairs, nearly the same amount of money that was spent to build it. The city's Department of Parks and Recreation did not respond to requests for comment.

The 3,000-square-foot pavilion, which cost $1.4 million when it opened in 2002, has been closed since last summer. It was inspected by "in-house engineers, architects, Five Boro & Borough M & O."

STUDY FINDINGS

The assessment claims all 2-inch by 12-inch timber beams showed considerable section loss wherever there is contact with accumulated water. In a few locations, total loss was noted. This condition is typical at all columns, stairs and the ramp area. The "heavy timber section" also revealed section loss, similar to the condition and location described above. "There was no total loss," the inspection reports.

"However, at every column location the top two to four of these members appear to be spongy, indicating deterioration of timber due to water accumulation." Timber planks, posts, beams and bracing at the stairs and ramps appear to be completely depleted, and will require reconstruction before re-opening the pavilion, says the report.

Additionally, all shim plates and bracing at the columns needs to be replaced, and all columns have deteriorated and also need to be replaced. The structure exhibits signs of lateral movement, the inspection reads. Additional lateral bracing and/or batter piles will be necessary to stabilize the structure against lateral movement.

SOME GOOD NEWS

On the bright side, the roof and piles appear to be in fairly good condition. The inspection's scope summary explains "This capital project involves the removal and replacement of all structural framing members, columns, deck planks, railings, railing posts, stairs and ramps."

The roof and piles will be retained, and additional piles (battered) or bracing will be installed to stabilize the structure against lateral movement. "I have expressed to Commissioner (Adena) Long the importance of the Pavilion at Conference House Park," said Assemblyman Lou Tobacco (R-South Shore.)

"I am confident that they are working to remedy the problems and I stand ready to assist Parks to expedite the process." An open-air structure, the Pavilion was part of a $14 million plan to unify the historic 225-acre Conference House Park.

The pavilion faces the Raritan Bay and affords a view of the surrounding waterways for visitors who used to come to take in the salty air and relax on the pavilion's long, green benches. It was the second such structure in that location.

Members of Mundys Softball League playing at Prospect Park. A public hearing on the proposed new ballfield permitting rules was held today at the Chelsea Recreation Center. A reported 140 attended. See the full list of proposed rules changes below. (Photo: Kryssa Schemmerling)

City-Wide

Grownups are crying foul over the city’s move to free up more ballfields for kids’ sports teams.

New rules proposed by the Parks Department say that all youth leagues requesting permits for ball fields will be considered before any adult groups get a shot, according to the New York Daily News.

City officials say they’re just putting in writing what has long been an informal practice, but adults who play ball at Prospect Park are worried a strict application of the rules will shut them out.

A member of the Just For Kicks adult softball league (left) testifies at today’s hearing. The proposed changes to the system governing ball fields in city parks drew around 140 people today, many of whom expressed concern that a new priority for youth leagues would end up pushing adult games out,according to The Other Local East Village.(Photo: Stephen Rex Brown)

“An unintentional side effect could be that these smaller leagues are going to be wiped out,” said David Rawson, 49, head of the Mundys Softball League, which plays Sunday afternoons at Prospect Park, who plans to testify against the rules at a hearing Thursday. “We’ve been around for 25 years and we’ve built up a nice little community around the league, and we’re just concerned we’re going to lose our permit.”

“It’s not just knee jerk kids first. Children can pretty much only get exercise in the context of organized sports. Adults can go for a run; they can join a gym,” he said, adding youth and adult leagues mostly request different times that don’t conflict.

“Some of the adult leagues worried they’re going to be pushed out are needlessly worried.”

Benepe added the city has greatly expanded the number of fields available. “Adult softball leagues used to play on asphalt fields. You’d come home bleeding after a game,” he said.

Many little league teams are eager for new rules in Manhattan, where competition for space is fierce and a few large adult leagues dominate many fields.

The dynamic is different in Brooklyn, where little leagues hold most of the permits for Prospect Park.

“We always need more fields...but we’re not desperate,” said Steven Pisano, head of the South Brooklyn Baseball League, one of eight little leagues in the Prospect Park Baseball Association. “We would make no effort to block the adults from having the access they have.”

Still, adult players are worried they could be unintended casualties, since any youth group that applied for weekend spots would get priority.

“I’m definitely a supporter of youth baseball, but I also enjoy playing myself,” said John Georges, 63, who plays in the Brooklyn Meadows Softball League.

“Most of the guys we play with, the only time they can really do it is early in the morning on Sunday...I hope there’s room for everybody.”

Jimmy Wallenstein, 48, who plays in the Mundys league, said the city should be encouraging sports as a lifelong pursuit.

“Kids have a lot more time. Kids can play during the week. Adults can’t,” he said. “It goes without saying children need a place to play, but adults need a place to play too.”

Pursuant to the authority invested in the Commissioner of the Department of Parks & Recreation (“Parks”) by Sections 389 and 533(a)(9) of the New York City Charter and in accordance with the requirement of Section 1043 of the New York City Charter, Parks proposes to revise § 2-12 and to delete § 2-13 of Chapter 2 to Title 56 of the Official Compilation of Rules of the City of New York.

These amendments were not included in the Parks regulatory agenda because Parks was not aware of the necessity for the amendments at the time the regulatory agenda was prepared.

Instructions

Prior to the close of the hearing, you may submit written comments about the proposed amendment by mail to the Department of Parks and Recreation at:

or electronically through NYCRULES at www.nyc.gov/nycrules by January 26, 2012.

To request a sign language interpreter or other form of reasonable accommodation at the hearing, please notify Shanay M. Smith at (212) 360-1383 or email shanay.smith@parks.nyc.gov, on or before January 12, 2012.

To notify the Department of Parks and Recreation of your intention to testify at the hearing and have your name included on an advance list of those expected to testify and who will be called in order of sign up, please contact:

Clarify and codify practices utilized by Parks when accepting, processing, and issuing ballfield permit applications in order to fairly allocate ballfields and courts amongst a wide range of applicants.

Better explain how permit requests are processed;

Continue the long-standing practice of Parks to promote and accommodate youth athletic opportunities, while still providing adults with reasonable access to ballfields and courts; and

Reflect Parks’ efforts to fairly accommodate as many requests as possible for ballfield or court permits.

New material is indicated by underlining. Deletions are indicated by brackets.

"Shall" and "must" denote mandatory requirements and may be used interchangeably in the rules of this department.

Section 2 Title 56 of the Official Compilation of the Rules of the City of New York is amended to read as follows:

(a) Permit applications. (1) Those who wish to reserve a court, rink or ballfield (“sports facility”) under the jurisdiction or management of the Department for the sports of basketball, baseball, softball, cricket, roller hockey, and volleyball must obtain a written permit from the Department. If an individual is applying for a permit on behalf of a group or athletic league, he or she must so designate on the permit. Only one individual may apply for a permit per group or athletic league.

(2) The completed application must be received by the Department no later than March 1 of each year. Later applications will be filled on a space available basis.

(3) The completed application must include a list of all sports facilities requested.

(4) The Department reserves the right to require a cleanup bond and/or personal liability insurance for the event/game, naming the City of New York as co-insured. The factors to be considered in requiring a bond and/or insurance are: (i) estimated number of spectators to attend sessions, (ii) involvement of vendors (where permitted by the Department), (iii) past history of league/event.

(5) Admission tickets, refreshments or any other articles may not be sold or offered for sale within or adjacent to any park area without the prior written authorization of the Department.

(b) Permits. (1) The permittee must confine sports activities to the locations and times specified on the permit.

(2) The permittee shall remain subject to the Rules of the Department, the specific terms of the permit, and to all rules, regulations and laws of all City, State and Federal departments insofar as applicable.

(3) The permittee must clean and restore the premises after each session.

(4) Pamphlets, handbills, or advertising material of any kind may not be posted, placed or distributed at the courts or ballfilelds, unless written permission is granted by the Department.

(5) The permittee must have in his/her possession at the time and site of the reserved session the permit for the use of the sports facility and any other Permits or documents required by the Department or any other City agency for proposed activities at the session.

(6) The permittee is liable for all damage or injury to property or persons that may occur or be caused by the use of the permit, and by accepting the permit the permittee agrees to save the City of New York and the Department harmless from any claim whatsoever which may result from such use.

(7) Any transfer of permits requires the approval of the athletic permit coordinator of the borough in which the sports facilities are located. Such transfer, if approved, must take place in the office of the athletic permit coordinator of the relevant borough with both transferor and transferee present. The permit is not otherwise transferable.

(8) The permit is revocable at any time at the discretion of the Commissioner, or his or her representative. The reasons for revocation include, but are not limited to, (i) providing incorrect information on an application form, (ii) failure to adhere to the rules of the Department or the conditions of the permit, and (iii) the use of a permit issued to a youth organization by adults. If a reserved session is cancelled by the Department for administrative reasons, the session may be rescheduled where feasible. The permittee has the right to appeal the revocation of a permit to the Chairperson of the Department’s Ballfield Task

Force within 10 days immediately following the mailing of notice of revocation by the Department. Such appeal must be in writing. The decisions of the Chairperson of the Ballfield Task Force shall be final.

(9) The maximum number of reserved sessions that any adult single-permit holder or league may control is limited to sixteen sessions per week, per park. The maximum length of any permit is six months. Exceptions may be made by the Commissioner or his or her representative. Youth leagues shall not be subject to the 16 session per week, per park limit.

(10) The Department may review the practices of all leagues and tournaments to determine whether the permittee should receive the requested number of reserved sessions. If the Department determines that sports facility space is in high demand and that the permittee does not reasonably need all of the session time requested, the Department may approve the permit in part, granting to the permittee some fraction of the field or court time applied for.

(11) The Department may inspect the site to determine if the permittee is utilizing all of the reserved time requested. In the event that the Department determines that the permittee is not using all of the time requested, the Department may reduce the number of permitted sessions.

(12) Due to space limitations, the Department will not allow the reservation of sports facility space for practice sessions.]

(a) The following terms (as they are used in this section) will have the meanings listed below: “Adult League.” Adult Leagues are Adult Recreation sports leagues, including, but not limited to

community based organization leagues, independent leagues, college leagues and corporate leagues.

“Adult Recreation.” Adult Recreation refers to a category of applicants for and holders of permits for the use of ballfields or courts for athletic activity that are not within the category of Youth Recreation.

“New Applicant.” New Applicant(s) are:

(1) those applicant(s) that received permits for the previous year or season, and wish to apply for a different number of hours, or a different number of ballfields or courts at the same location for which a permit was held in the previous year or season;

(2) applicant(s) who have never sought permits for the use of a particular ballfield or court before; or

(3) Returning Applicant(s) who include new or additional requests in their permit application(s) are treated as New Applicant(s) for such new or additional permit requests.

“Returning Applicant.” Returning Applicant(s) are those applicant(s) requesting the same number of hours, and number of ballfields or courts at a location as they received under permit(s) for the previous year or season.

“Seasonal Applicant.” Seasonal Applicant(s) are all applicants who are not within the category of Short Term Permit Applicants.

“Short Term Permit Applicant.” Short Term Applicant(s) are applicants that request permits to use ballfield(s) or court(s) for no more than four (4) days of athletic activity within a seven (7) day period. The request must not be connected with any other request for a ballfield or court permit during the same season.

“Youth League.” Youth Leagues are Youth Recreation sports leagues, including, but not limited to high school leagues, little leagues, community based organization leagues, and unaffiliated leagues.

“Youth Recreation.” Youth Recreation refers to a category of applicants for and holders of permits for athletic activity with participants who are all 17 years old or younger. Youth Recreation shall also include school recreation programs (grade school through high school athletic programs) regardless of the age of the participants.

(b) (1) Permit Application Process. Any person who wishes to reserve a ballfield or court under the jurisdiction or management of the Department for basketball, handball, baseball, softball, cricket, roller hockey, volleyball, football, lacrosse, rugby, ultimate frisbee, soccer, or any other ballfield or court sport must obtain a written permit from the Department. Any person applying for a permit on behalf of a group or athletic league must indicate that they are doing so on the permit application. Only one individual per group or athletic league may apply for a permit. Tennis permit regulations are separately addressed in section 2-01.

(2) The permit applicant must submit all applications to the Department’s borough permit office in the borough where the requested ballfield or court is located. Applications may be submitted via postal mail, through the Department’s website, or in-person or via facsimile (fax). Permit applications received by the borough permit office will be date and time stamped to acknowledge receipt. Applicants must apply separately to each borough permit office where they are seeking a ballfield or court.

(3) In order to process applications in advance of the start date for each season, the Department has established seasonal application periods. Applications (for each of the respective periods) will not be accepted prior to the start date for a given application period. For the purpose of this section the seasonal application periods for the following seasons are:

(4) For purposes of this section, the seasonal recreational periods are as follows:

(5) The Department reserves the right to determine appropriate recreational usage for each ballfield or court. Permits shall be issued for the use of individual ballfields or courts designed for a specific sport, (e.g., baseball or soccer) at any time during the year. Ballfields that are designed to host a variety of sports will be allocated as follows: during the spring/summer season priority will be given to applications for bat and ball sports such as baseball and softball and including but not limited to cricket, and during the fall/winter seasons priority will be given to sports played on rectangular ballfields, such as football and

Season

Spring and Summer Season

Fall Season

Winter Season

Application Period

November 15 through January 15

April 15 through June 15

September 15 through November 1

Season

Spring and Summer Season

Fall Season

Winter Season

Seasonal Recreational Period

March 17 through August 31

September 1st through November 31

December 1 through March 16

soccer. The Department may consider an out-of-season permit application for ballfields that are designed to host a variety of sports (e.g., baseball in the fall, soccer in the spring) provided there are not qualified applicants for the priority seasonal uses set forth above. Permit holders granted permits for out-of- season use will not be treated as a Returning Applicant should they apply the year following the issuance of an out-of-season permit. No grass ballfields will be available during the winter season.

(6) Applications received (during the relevant application period) will be categorized by the following factors:

(i) Youth or Adult Recreation(ii) Returning or New Applicants(iii) Short Term or Seasonal Applicants

(7) For Applications received during the relevant application period, the Department will first consider Youth Recreation permit requests before any Adult Recreation permit requests. Youth Recreation applicants that are also Returning Applicant(s) and have fully complied with a) the terms and conditions of the previous season’s permits and b) all other Department rules and regulations, will be given preference to use the same dates and times allotted to them in the previous season. The Department will also consider the following factors when allocating Youth Recreation permits:

(i) whether the applicant is part of a Youth League.(ii) whether the Youth League is part of an official school league.

(iii) whether the Short Term Permit Applicant(s) can be accommodated before allocating permits for Seasonal Applicants.

(iv) whether the Department can accommodate newly established Youth Leagues in order to equitably allocate ballfield and court usage as between newly established and Returning Applicant Youth Leagues.

(v) Due to space limitations, the Department may reject permit requests from applicants that seek the reservation of ballfields or courts for practice sessions. Permits issued for practice sessions will not be treated as part of a Returning Applicant’s previous season’s permits for purposes of determining whether an applicant is a New Applicant or a Returning Applicant.

(8) For applications received during the relevant application period, after the Department has accommodated the Youth Recreation applications, the Department will process Adult Recreation permit requests. Adult Recreation applicants that are also Returning Applicants and have 1) fully complied with the terms and conditions of the previous season’s permits and 2) all other Department rules and regulations, will be given preference to use to use the same dates and times allotted in the previous season. The Department will also consider the following factors:

(i) whether the applicant is part of an Adult League.

(ii) whether Short Term Permit Application(s) can be accommodated before allocating permits for Seasonal Applications.

(iii) whether the Department can accommodate newly established Adult Leagues in order to equitably allocate ballfield usage as between newly established and Returning Applicant Adult Leagues.

(iv) Due to space limitations, the Department may reject permit applications that seek the reservation of ballfields or courts for practice sessions. Permits issued for practice sessions will

not be treated as part of a Returning Applicant’s previous season’s permits for purposes of determining whether an applicant is a New Applicant or a Returning Applicant.

(9) Applications received after the relevant application period will be processed on a first come, first served basis, after all Applications received during the relevant application period are processed.

(c) Permit requirements and limitations.

(1) The Department reserves the right to leave ballfield or court time unpermitted at various locations for other authorized uses, to accommodate Departmental use, for maintenance purposes, or to allow other unpermitted activity.

(2) The Department reserves the right to move permit holders to another location if necessary as determined by the Department, or assign a permit applicant to a location other than the location(s) the applicant requested.

(3) The Department reserves the right to cancel permitted ballfield or court activity due to inclement weather and/or conditions that can result in long-term damage to the ballfield or court.

(4) This section does not apply to use of a ballfield or court that is subject to a license agreement to maintain and operate specified ballfields or courts during the times the licensee is authorized to use the ballfield or court.

(5) The Department reserves the right to require a clean-up bond and/or liability insurance for the use of a ballfield or court, in which case the City shall be named as an additional insured. The factors considered by the Department to determine whether a bond or insurance are required for such event or game are: (i) estimated number of spectators expected to attend, (ii) involvement of vendors (where permitted by the Department), (iii) past history of the league or event, or (iv) such other factors as the Department may reasonably consider.

(6) All permit holders must have their permit(s), and any other documents required by the Department or any other City agency, in their possession at the time and site of the proposed activity.

(7) Any transfer of permit(s) requires the approval of the athletic permit coordinator of the borough in which the ballfields or courts are located. Once approved, the transfer must take place in the office of the Department staff responsible for issuing ballfield permits in the relevant borough with both transferor and transferee present. A permit may not be transferred in any other way.

(8) All permits are revocable at any time and at the discretion of the Commissioner, or at the discretion of the Commissioner’s designated representative. Reasons for revocation include, but are not limited to: (i) providing incorrect or false information on an application form, (ii) failure to adhere to Department rules or the conditions of the permit, and (iii) the use, by adults, of a permit issued for a Youth League. The permit holder has the right to appeal the revocation of a permit to the Department’s General Counsel, within ten (10) days immediately following the mailing of notice of revocation by the Department. Said appeal must be in writing. The decision of the Department’s General Counsel shall be final.

(9) The maximum number of reserved hours that any person or entity (other than a Youth League) holding a permit may have is 32 per week, per park. If the Department determines that ballfields or courts are in high demand, the Department may approve a permit application in part

and reject it in part, granting the permit holder some fraction of the requested ballfield or court time and/or granting permits for alternate locations.

(l0) The Department may inspect any ballfield or court to determine if the permit holder is utilizing all of its permitted time. In the event that the Department determines the permit holder is not using all of the permitted time, the Department may reduce the amount of permitted time.

(11) If the use of ballfields or courts constitutes a special event as outlined in § 2-08 of the Department’s rules, a special event permit shall be required in addition to the relevant ballfield permits. If the use of ballfields or courts involves vending as outlined in Section 1-05(b) of the Department’s rules, vending permits shall be required in addition to the relevant ballfield permits.

[§2-13 Football, Lacrosse, Rugby, Ultimate Frisbee and Soccer

(a) Permit applications. (1) Those who wish to reserve a court, rink or ballfield (“sports facility”) under the jurisdiction or management of the Department for the sports of football, rugby, ultimate Frisbee and soccer must obtain a written permit from the Department. If an individual is applying for a permit on behalf of a group or athletic league, he or she must so designate on the permit. Only one individual may apply for a permit per group or athletic league.

(2) The completed application must be received by the Department no later than March 1 of each year for spring and summer reservations, and no later than July1 for fall reservations. Later applications will be filled on a space available basis.

(3) The completed application must include a list of all sports facilities requested.

(4) The Department reserves the right to require a cleanup bond and/or personal liability insurance for the event/game, naming the City of New York as co-insured. The factors to be considered in requiring a bond and/or insurance are: (i) estimated number of spectators to attend sessions, (ii) involvement of vendors (where permitted by the Department), (iii) past history of league/event.

(5) Admission tickets, refreshments or any other articles may not be sold or offered for sale within or adjacent to any park area without the prior written authorization of the Department.

(b) Permits. (1) The permittee must confine sports activities to the locations and times specified on the permit.

(2) The permittee shall remain subject to the Rules of the Department, the specific terms of the permit, and to all rules, regulations and laws of all City, State and Federal departments insofar as applicable.

(3) The permittee must clean and restore the premises after each session.

(4) Pamphlets, handbills, or advertising material of any kind may not be posted, placed or distributed at the courts or ballfields, unless written permission is granted by the Department.

(5) The permittee must have in his/her possession at the time and site of the reserved session the permit for the use of the sports facility and any other Permits or documents required by the Department or any other City agency for proposed activities at the session.

(6) The permittee is liable for all damage or injury to property or persons that may occur or be caused by the use of the permit, and by accepting the permit the permittee agrees to save the City of New York and the Department harmless from any claim whatsoever which may result from such use.

(7) Any transfer of permits requires the approval of the athletic permit coordinator of the borough in which the sports facilities are located. Such transfer, if approved, must take place in the office of the athletic permit coordinator of the relevant borough with both transferor and transferee present. The permit is not otherwise transferable.

(8) The permit is revocable at any time at the discretion of the Commissioner, or his or her representative. The reasons for revocation include, but are not limited to, (i) providing incorrect information on an application form, (ii) failure to adhere to the rules of the Department or the conditions of the permit, and (iii) the use of a permit issued to a youth organization by adults. If a reserved session is cancelled by the Department for administrative reasons, the session may be rescheduled where feasible. The permittee has the right to appeal the revocation of a permit to the Chairperson of the Department’s Ballfield Task Force within 10 days immediately following the mailing of notice of revocation by the Department. Such appeal must be in writing. The decisions of the Chairperson of the Ballfield Task Force shall be final.

(9) The maximum number of reserved sessions that any adult single-permit holder or league may control is limited to sixteen sessions per week, per park. The maximum length of any permit is six months. Exceptions may be made by the Commissioner or his or her representative. Youth leagues shall not be subject to the 16 session per week, per park limit.

(10) The Department may review the practices of all leagues and tournaments to determine whether the permittee should receive the requested number of reserved sessions. If the Department determines that sports facility space is in high demand and that the permittee does not reasonably need all of the session time requested, the Department may approve the permit in part, granting to the permittee some fraction of the field or court time applied for.

(11) The Department may inspect the site to determine if the permittee is utilizing all of the reserved time requested. In the event that the Department determines that the permittee is not using all of the time requested, the Department may reduce the number of permitted sessions.

(12) Due to space limitations, the Department will not allow the reservation of sports facility space for practice sessions.]